Adult Businesses Getting "Show"n the Door
Well, a state Senate Committee seems to have passed that Missouri bill, SB 32, after all. (I mentioned it in a previous entry.) Actually, they didn’t pass all of it, just large sections of the bill. And they passed them by piggybacking them onto another piece of pending legislation, HB 353. You can read the entire article about the bill here.
While the whole spirit behind the bill is disturbing (and let’s face it, they’re really trying to legislate adult businesses out of existence across the entire state), there are several points - in particular - that I’d like to bring up. The first point is the meaning of “sexually-oriented business”. What exactly does “substantial” mean? They were better off affixing the 10-percent rule to the definition of that kind of business.
Secondly, "two adult uses under one roof": Where does one “use” end and another begin? I could understand the demarcation point if you had, say, a cabaret and an adult store sharing the same space. But suppose an adult video store in the state has a screening booth or room. The owner could argue that he allows his patrons to preview their movies before they buy. Who could say that he doesn’t?
And the fact that a legitimate adult business - which is under suspicion for illegal activities - can be shut down (in the meantime and in-between time) pending appeal; that just rubs me the wrong way.
On a lighter note, the dance club stipulations are kind of ironic. In one of the few situations - as a guy in Missouri - where you’d want to get up close and personal, you’ll have to use a ten-foot pole. And fellas, bring your binoculars (okay, i'm exaggerating).
Also on a lighter note (and saving the best point for last), there’s just something very amusing about an “anti-glory hole provision". When was the last time you read/saw/heard mentioned/witnessed a law that contained the clause: “…and there shall be no aperture between viewing rooms…”:)
From the moment I first heard about this entire anti-porn bill, I’ve had nothing but questions, doubts, and what-if scenarios go through my mind. When it comes to porn and the adult industry, the “Show Me” state is showing less and less by the moment.
While the whole spirit behind the bill is disturbing (and let’s face it, they’re really trying to legislate adult businesses out of existence across the entire state), there are several points - in particular - that I’d like to bring up. The first point is the meaning of “sexually-oriented business”. What exactly does “substantial” mean? They were better off affixing the 10-percent rule to the definition of that kind of business.
Secondly, "two adult uses under one roof": Where does one “use” end and another begin? I could understand the demarcation point if you had, say, a cabaret and an adult store sharing the same space. But suppose an adult video store in the state has a screening booth or room. The owner could argue that he allows his patrons to preview their movies before they buy. Who could say that he doesn’t?
And the fact that a legitimate adult business - which is under suspicion for illegal activities - can be shut down (in the meantime and in-between time) pending appeal; that just rubs me the wrong way.
On a lighter note, the dance club stipulations are kind of ironic. In one of the few situations - as a guy in Missouri - where you’d want to get up close and personal, you’ll have to use a ten-foot pole. And fellas, bring your binoculars (okay, i'm exaggerating).
Also on a lighter note (and saving the best point for last), there’s just something very amusing about an “anti-glory hole provision". When was the last time you read/saw/heard mentioned/witnessed a law that contained the clause: “…and there shall be no aperture between viewing rooms…”:)
From the moment I first heard about this entire anti-porn bill, I’ve had nothing but questions, doubts, and what-if scenarios go through my mind. When it comes to porn and the adult industry, the “Show Me” state is showing less and less by the moment.
posted by Don_One at 2:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home